I woke up this morning to find out that the first episode of the second season was on the interwebs last night and I missed out on it. Looking forward to 7/13.

so i woke up this morning,grabbed my coffee and started my routine of seeing whats happening on the sift to be greeted by your comment.

thank you my friend.
it brought a smile to my face.
and brought me back to earth with a giant dose of getoveryourself.
my comment had a certain..shrillness... that,while unintended,was very evident with a reread.

i would love the assistance to get to the truth of the matter.i would not even know where to start.the articles i found for/against seemed to be a tug of war between vegans and big monied interests.

i think everyone here would benefit from your talents.

i guess i just find it ironic that one video has 24 votes,while mine is left floundering,yet both are basically saying the same thing.

grant you,the related video if far more entertaining.

anyways,thank you for bringing me down to earth my friend.
/tips coffee
and have a great morning! (or afternoon/evening)

Just woke up Christmas Morning.
We're staying in a hotel. The rest of my family is still sleeping so I've snuck out and am sitting in the lobby in front of the fireplace.

Once everyone wakes up, We'll all head out into the snow (-20c) and over to my father-in-law's trailer and spend Christmas with him.

I just wanted to take a moment to with everyone a Merry Christmas on this day. I also wish everyone a special day no matter which holiday you celebrate (or don't celebrate)

Cheers, as I raise my glass of Chocolate Cherry Beer to you all.

I predict there will be a lot of evidence of ballot box stuffing, with exit polls not aligning themselves with vote counts. This will happen at a far higher rate in precincts with electronic voting tabulation.

I woke up this morning after a bad dream: that Romney had won. Not because more people voted for him, but because the systems that count ballots favour him and his politics.

I live in Yarmouth, Maine which is on the coast about 15 miles north of Portland. Based upon the local news, the biggest impact is power loss. Thankfully, I woke up this morning and the coffee pot was waiting for me.

Isn't it great when that happens?

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
>> ^Boise_Lib:

promote


Hey, thanks dude! Moved up so quick, was surprised when I woke up this morning :

>> ^Boise_Lib:

promote


Hey, thanks dude! Moved up so quick, was surprised when I woke up this morning

Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:

...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...

This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.

Yes, I agree that even if every human decided that torturing babies was good, it would still be objectively evil.

On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.

That there are universal moral values in humanity is clearly evidence for and not against the existence of objective moral values. To turn around and say that just because they exist doesn't automatically mean they are objective isn't an argument. You need to flesh this out. Are you saying there aren't any objective moral values? That it isn't absolutely wrong to torture babies for fun?

In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.

Well, we haven't gotten anywhere near what you're talking about. I said that your beliefs are relevant in engaging the argument. I do find it fairly common though that atheists will resist revealing their true positions, nearly to the brink of death. Probably for the reason you have revealed, that they balk at there being any inference drawn to a parity between the respective belief systems. I would say though that if you accuse some of having beliefs which lack evidence, and you yourself have beliefs that lack evidence, then there is indeed a parity, no matter how internally consistent you believe you're being.

Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.

I'm not trying to win the argument, and it isn't important for me to do so. I am only interested in what you believe and having a fruitful dialogue.

"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

In my reply, I gave a refutation to your objection as well as noting that I would like to advance to the actual argument. I don't have a problem with logical argumentation, I just was somewhat disheartened to see you were trying to kill off the argument without engaging it.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:
...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...
This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.
If you don't agree with that quote, then all you're saying is if any moral values (not necessarily objective moral values) demonstrably exist in humans, then a god exists, without determining what is so special about these moral values that a god must have made them. If human moral values are no more metaphysically significant than large brains, upright posture, self-awareness, reason, guile, or any other human characteristic, then there's no reason to suggest they must have come from a god, and Premise 1 (that a god necessarily created OMVs) remains unproven.
On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.
what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.
If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.
I joined this argument to see how you think, and how someone being logical might think that Craig's argument was valid, and to challenge that position. What I personally believe has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Craig's argument, just as a defence attorney's opinion of their client's guilt or innocence holds no weight in the courtroom. It's only the people who make propositions (like Craig) who must defend them. I have no interest in defending my own positions because I know they're not provable, and may even be false. I also don't guide my life by them, so it doesn't matter.
In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.
Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.
So as a rule, if I'm in an ontological debate with an opponent and I intend to join the debate seriously, I keep my own opinions out because I'm not trying to prove any propositions, and my own unproven opinions cannot disprove anyone else's anyway. Only logic and reason can do that, so that's what I use. I don't hold anything to be absolutely true, so if they demonstrate what I believe is not necessarily true by proposing an intelligent creator as an alternate theory to mine, I'll just agree.
"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

@shinyblurry

Of course, just about universally, humans hold very similar moral values about certain behaviours like killing, inflicting pain, caring, protecting and so on. To determine what this entails, I need to know if you agree with this snippet from my earlier comment:

...[our agreed-upon standard definition of "objective moral values" as given verbatim by Craig] entails that if all humans on Earth agreed that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable, that it would still not be morally acceptable. In fact, it also entails that if all humans were dead, those moral values would still exist...

This part of the definition (the "objective" part) is necessary for determining that a god must have made the OMVs.

If you don't agree with that quote, then all you're saying is if any moral values (not necessarily objective moral values) demonstrably exist in humans, then a god exists, without determining what is so special about these moral values that a god must have made them. If human moral values are no more metaphysically significant than large brains, upright posture, self-awareness, reason, guile, or any other human characteristic, then there's no reason to suggest they must have come from a god, and Premise 1 (that a god necessarily created OMVs) remains unproven.

On the other hand, if you agree with that quote, then you have to admit that just because humans all exhibit the moral belief that torturing children is bad, it isn't entailed that torturing children would continue to be bad if humans all changed their minds about it or if humans were all wiped out. In other words, to say there is a universal human moral value is not to say that the value itself transcends our DNA and is therefore an objective moral value (by Craig's definition: "independent of whether anybody believes it to be so"). In this case, Premise 2, the existence of an objective moral value, remains unproven.

what do you believe? That is what is truly relevant to the argument.

If you want to take a position of moral skepticism, then feel free, but you don't get to dismiss the argument over it. How we determine whether premise 2 is true or false is at the heart of how you approach this entire problem. How about you engage the argument rather than trying to break it apart so you don't have to take any position? It would be nice if we could advance the discussion.

I joined this argument to see how you think, and how someone being logical might think that Craig's argument was valid, and to challenge that position. What I personally believe has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Craig's argument, just as a defence attorney's opinion of their client's guilt or innocence holds no weight in the courtroom. It's only the people who make propositions (like Craig) who must defend them. I have no interest in defending my own positions because I know they're not provable, and may even be false. I also don't guide my life by them, so it doesn't matter.

In this argument, I have taken no position whatsoever about the nature of moral values. This was on purpose and with great restraint. I've had dozens of serious drawn-out ontological discussions with believers, and when their own position is pushed against the wall, they get desperate to find out what I think, then when I tell them, they point out how it's possible that my theory is wrong or that it doesn't explain everything, and say I'm close-minded for not considering their theory, and dance around the room saying that my theory isn't necessarily true either. It's the "either" that really pisses me off because it implies that their various beliefs are merely "not necessarily true", and on equal footing with my own non-proven beliefs, whereas I have actually shown their beliefs to be self-contradictory, unlike my own.

Or if I have merely shown that one particular assertion of theirs is not necessarily true, they think it's a massive victory to prove the same about something, anything that I believe, and spend a great deal of effort in the process, even though I already knew it wasn't necessarily true when I woke up that morning, and I don't care.

So as a rule, if I'm in an ontological debate with an opponent and I intend to join the debate seriously, I keep my own opinions out because I'm not trying to prove any propositions, and my own unproven opinions cannot disprove anyone else's anyway. Only logic and reason can do that, so that's what I use. I don't hold anything to be absolutely true, so if they demonstrate what I believe is not necessarily true by proposing an intelligent creator as an alternate theory to mine, I'll just agree.

"Breaking apart" an argument is how I "engage the argument". What other way is there? You say Craig is right, and I go about proving he's not necessarily right, then you say I'm not engaging the argument because I won't talk about the side issue of my own beliefs. I'll answer any questions you have about my beliefs once this Craig argument is settled. If we can't settle a formal logical debate on logical terms, then I don't see any point in having any logical discussions.

Thanks - I have no idea why, because I haven't heard this in years. I woke up this morning with it stuck in my head, and have been singing it all day. I must feel like I need my friends to hold me up today - Sometimes life is like that.

In reply to this comment by mintbbb:
This is actually one of my favorite Billy Idol songs/videos! :
*quality
*80s

I bought a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 yesterday and I fecking LOVE it.

Size, weight and form factor are all perfect. It's easy to hold whether I'm at my desk or couch. It also allows me to quickly move around with it to share information with my family. And when I woke up this morning it was great to check my email in five seconds instead of powering on the desktop (I could use my phone but that doesn't normally occur to me when at home).

The whole touch interface is very tactile and pleasing. It's got a smooth learning curve (I got most of the basics right in the shop and set their display model to use Swype which amazed the sales guy) and once you have the wi-fi setup the next thing is to download any essential applications.

I definitely recommend Dolphin HD browser. The widgets work well and it generally feels like a cutting edge tech experience. The market can be flaky - I know it can drop connections over wi-fi which has happened - and I need to google for the tab-optimised applications, but other than that no complaints at the moment.

The next step is definitely support for multiple users. That oversight astonishes me as this is a device that will be shared unlike a phone.

I didn't realize when I woke up this morning that I would be seeing THE COOLEST THING EVAR!!

hah, the sorrow I had when I woke up this morning...

" aww shit, I actually said that "

your a good sport.

Hey Shepppard...

I woke up this morning thinking... maybe he did know that was a Christian school... (see my comment above.)

And if he did, then logically what he is saying is -- if something bad is done by Christians, then that is an example of how religion is bad. But if something good is done by Christians, then that is something that can't be ascribed to religion, it has to be universal.

Which doesn't make sense, logically, right? All bad actions are religion's fault and no good actions can be done in the name of a religion?

Folks are both good and bad. Institutions are both good and bad.

It seems to me it is neither fair nor logical to separate the good from the bad.

And to repeat -- yeah, it is stupid to say for any random good action "that's the Christian thing to do." We do agree there.


>> ^Shepppard:
"And yes, yes, for pity's sake, yes, I know bad things are done in the name of religion. What I am trying to get across is that good things are also done. And I think it is pretty dang weird that ya'll don't just say "yes, some good things are done, isn't that great" and let it lie. "
I won't speak for RS, but the point -I- was trying to make, was that I'm an Athiest, and yet, if I were to do this, I would've been lumped under the "It's the christian thing to do" pile. It's not because I'm a nice person, who believes in supporting those who need it. I would have done it, because it's what I deemed to be "right."
I won't argue with you, I see no point. It'd be like trying to push over a brick wall, I won't change my views, neither will you, and I'll leave you be for it. I won't, however, accept being told that something nice, decent, right, or moral is the "Christian" thing to do, when I'm doing it out of the goodness of my heart, and not because of the Deity I believe in.

It's strange, I had a compulsion to thumb through the copy of A People's History of the United States that I brought with me to Denmark when I woke up this morning. I was sad to hear that he passed away.